Zen and the dogma of non-duality

[deepbluehum]

It is the realization of your own emptiness to the fullest possible degree.

Which is tactile bliss?

Well, that is a side effect.

If the bliss isn't peace, then it isn't emptiness.

[alwayson]

Well, that is a side effect.

Side effect?

Tactile bliss inseperable from emptiness, no?

[ajax]

The boundaries of any system are defined arbitrarily.

The boundaries of a system are defined by the system(s).

By trying to analyse the conventional as absolute we are taking it to be an attempt to represent reality through concepts. It isn't that, it's a means, not an end.

Yes indeed.

If every situation presents unique relative variables, no preparation in moral reasoning is even possible.

Every situation does present unique, and I suppose relative, variables. Preparation is obviously possible.

... emphasis on emptiness is not distinct from morality.

No one said that it was.

Eido Roshi is believed to be realized, yet some of his behavior is morally subpar. How can that be if he is realized and has been, as you put it, freed from the delusion and confusion of self vs other?

I'm a pretty confused fellow, so I can't really judge someone else's level of realisation. However, being a roshi doesn't mean you are a Buddha i.e. one who is completely free of delusion. Maybe his ways are beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals. Maybe he is simply full of shit. Either way, as soon as we pass judgement, he becomes a mirror - which is all a teacher needs to be.

You are saying that "realized" teachers with dubious moral behavior are just a little bit realized or something? Many people who are "unrealized" and do not practice any tradition of Buddhism demonstrate greater wisdom, compassion, etc, than many of the teachers mentioned earlier. Does that mean that they are more realized?

I'm not suggesting that only discernment and moral reasoning be developed. I'm suggesting a fuller expression of Buddhist practice that doesn't over emphasize emptiness and devalue discernment and moral reasoning.

Discernment creates separation, separation creates conflict. Conflict can only ever create more conflict.

So in your opinion the whole division of the Eightfold Path concerning wisdom only ever creates conflict?

How can you do anything well without discernment?

[Virgo]

Well, that is a side effect.

Side effect?

Tactile bliss inseperable from emptiness, no?

It's not separate from the experience. Well, technically it would be, though it arises along with it.

[Acchantika]

The boundaries of any system are defined arbitrarily.

The boundaries of a system are defined by the system(s).

That's a tautology.

A system is a conceptual model implied onto reality to facilitate our understanding. There are no systems in nature.

Every situation does present unique, and I suppose relative, variables. Preparation is obviously possible.

Unique i.e. unpredictable.

... emphasis on emptiness is not distinct from morality.

No one said that it was.

See your previous statement:

"I'm suggesting a fuller expression of Buddhist practice that doesn't over emphasize emptiness and devalue discernment and moral reasoning."

You are saying that "realized" teachers with dubious moral behavior are just a little bit realized or something?

I am saying that any judgment of dubious morality is based on our own preconceptions of morality, and that realisation in Zen is gradual. For example, see the Five Ranks of Tozan.

Many people who are "unrealized" and do not practice any tradition of Buddhism demonstrate greater wisdom, compassion, etc, than many of the teachers mentioned earlier. Does that mean that they are more realized?

Sure, if by more realised you mean they have less attachment to notions of selfhood.

As before; by wisdom here you mean analytic intelligence and by compassion you mean acting to fufill a previously defined incentive. This is different from the Buddhist notions of wisdom and compassion, which are awareness without discrimination and without self-clinging, respectively.

One cannot develop these by discriminating and clinging to ideas of self, which is what you are suggesting.

One can develop these by contemplating the emptiness of concepts and self, which is what the Zennists are suggesting.

Hence the emphasis on emptiness as oppose to moral reasoning.

If the system produces some bad eggs, it doesn't mean the system is broken. People differ in capacity.

Discernment creates separation, separation creates conflict. Conflict can only ever create more conflict.

So in your opinion the whole division of the Eightfold Path concerning wisdom only ever creates conflict?

What you are really talking about is discrimination, not discernment. The discernment, or wisdom, of prajna is not a kind of discriminative awareness.

How can you do anything well without discernment?

By developing wisdom instead. Prajna is non-conceptual. You are talking about conceptual value systems.

[muni]

Nature to itself: Ouch now, how is this experience defined to be correct? Where I must put the list of correct ideation?

[LastLegend]

Karma is what moral actions based on. And emptiness cannot be reached by thinking and concepts. So nihilism is based on thinking and concept/or imagination. To reach emptiness, you must practice and through practice you will experience.

Look at attachment to this physical body and from that attachment we mentally react with emotions and false thinking and act upon those emotions and false thinking. This is creating karma, and karma will lead to rebirth.

[ajax]

Acchantika

I'd like to respond to your last post, but I would first ask that you please reconsider the parts where you are telling me what I'm saying and what I mean. It is pointless to discuss things this way, and it's rather rude. If you are unclear about something or not sure what I mean you can ask.

[Acchantika]

I'd like to respond to your last post, but I would first ask that you please reconsider the parts where you are telling me what I'm saying and what I mean. It is pointless to discuss things this way, and it's rather rude.

This is completely misinterpreting what was intended.

Your statements make it clear that you equate prajna with a conceptual process - reasoning. I have disputed this, hence the statements "by x, you mean y".

For example, x is prajna and y is a conceptual process. If you think prajna is a conceptual process, then you say prajna but mean a conceptual process.

I have offered justfication and reasoning for why I think this is so.

The basis of a debate is that one party presents one view, and another party presents an alternative view, both using reason and argumentation to support their statements.

If you do not understand the principles of debate, that has nothing to do with me, and you probably shouldn't be in a public discussion forum.

[muni]

prajna is nonconceptual, so lets' discuss.

springtimes' dog shit in its' autumn being....

[ajax]

I'd like to respond to your last post, but I would first ask that you please reconsider the parts where you are telling me what I'm saying and what I mean. It is pointless to discuss things this way, and it's rather rude.

This is completely misinterpreting what was intended.

Your statements make it clear that you equate prajna with a conceptual process - reasoning. I have disputed this, hence the statements "by x, you mean y".

For example, x is prajna and y is a conceptual process. If you think prajna is a conceptual process, then you say prajna but mean a conceptual process.

I have offered justfication and reasoning for why I think this is so.

The basis of a debate is that one party presents one view, and another party presents an alternative view, both using reason and argumentation to support their statements.

If you do not understand the principles of debate, that has nothing to do with me, and you probably shouldn't be in a public discussion forum.

You say:

What you are really talking about is discrimination, not discernment.

If I meant to say discrimination wouldn't I have used that word? (actually I did use it by mistake earlier)

What do you think the difference is between discrimination and discernment?

[Acchantika]

What do you think the difference is between discrimination and discernment?

I think:

In an everyday intellectual context, discernment means conceptual assessment of variances and discrimination means selective treatment on the basis of that recognition.

These are the kinds your notion of moral reasoning advocates i.e. a form of conceptual activity.

However, discernment as it is used in relation to wisdom in the Eightfold Path is not a conceptual activity.

Yet, you equated the two - hence, the "say but mean" shennanigans, which was not a personal comment.

In fact, in a Buddhist context, I claim the kind of discernment defined above and which you present is actually a kind of discrimination i.e. wrong understanding.

Therefore, in response to:

If I meant to say discrimination wouldn't I have used that word?

As above, then, no; which, I reiterate, is not some kind of personal judgment but a perceived contention (read: opinion) based on the misassociation of defintions.

[Acchantika]

springtimes' dog shit in its' autumn being....

Dammit, I was just about to non-say that.

[ajax]

What do you think the difference is between discrimination and discernment?

I think:

In an everyday intellectual context, discernment means conceptual assessment of variances and discrimination means selective treatment on the basis of that recognition.

These are the kinds your notion of moral reasoning advocates i.e. a form of conceptual activity.

However, discernment as it is used in relation to wisdom in the Eightfold Path is not a conceptual activity.

Yet, you equated the two...

Acchantika

I've used the words "discernment and moral reasoning" a dozen times in this topic, at least once on every page except for the first page. If I "equate the two" then why say one and the other?

Discernment in the virtuous sense means an individual possess uncommon wisdom, insight and good judgement. This sense seems the most appropriate for this discussion, don't you think? I don't know why you are talking about "everyday intellectual assessment of variances."

[Acchantika]

I've used the words "discernment and moral reasoning" a dozen times in this topic, at least once on every page except for the first page. If I "equate the two" then why say one and the other?

Discernment, reasoning, whatever we call it, is a form of conceptual activity.

It is not the same as wisdom i.e. prajna, which is not a form conceptual activity.

[tobes]

Now who would these people of poor understanding be? Who uses the term illusion-like?

Sometimes [quite often] teachers will speak the level of their students, when their own view is in fact higher or different. Why? Because sometimes teachers realize that they must feed the truth to their students in small doses.

Some people, hearing that all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions freak out. Some people who hear that phenomena are empty, freak out. This is why it is a bohdhisattva downfall to teach emptiness to the immature.

N

By all means practice and teach Dzogchen, but do not pretend that every interpretation of emptiness must conform to it.

[booker]

Neverending story

[Malcolm]

Now who would these people of poor understanding be? Who uses the term illusion-like?

Sometimes [quite often] teachers will speak the level of their students, when their own view is in fact higher or different. Why? Because sometimes teachers realize that they must feed the truth to their students in small doses.

Some people, hearing that all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions freak out. Some people who hear that phenomena are empty, freak out. This is why it is a bohdhisattva downfall to teach emptiness to the immature.

N

By all means practice and teach Dzogchen, but do not pretend that every interpretation of emptiness must conform to it.

If an explanation of emptiness does not conform to Dzogchen, then it does not conform to Madhyamaka since the explanation of emptiness in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka are identical.

N

[ajax]

I've used the words "discernment and moral reasoning" a dozen times in this topic, at least once on every page except for the first page. If I "equate the two" then why say one and the other?

Discernment, reasoning, whatever we call it, is a form of conceptual activity.

It is not the same as wisdom i.e. prajna, which is not a form conceptual activity.

Discernment is synonymous with wisdom, Acchantika. If you are trying to change the meaning of the word, well, I wish you the best of luck, but for the time being...

[Acchantika]

I wish you the best of luck

Thank you, I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. Best wishes